*
G.R. No. 96169. September 24, 1991.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
________________
* SECOND DIVISION.
760
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
SARMIENTO, J.;
761
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
the minimum
4
wage by P17.00 daily in the National Capital
Region. The Trade Union Congress of the Philippines
(TUCP) moved for reconsideration; so did the Personnel5
Management Association of the Philippines (PMAP).
ECOP opposed.
On October 23, 1990, the Board issued Wage Order No.
NCR01-A, amending Wage Order No. NCR-01, as follows:
________________
762
________________
6 Id., 76.
7 Id., 91.
8 Id.
763
9
the boards may no more than adjust “floor wages."
The Solicitor General, in his rejoinder, argues that
Republic Act No. 6727 is intended to correct “wage
distortions” and the salary-ceiling method (of determining
10
wages) is meant, precisely, to rectify wage distortions.
The Court is inclined to agree with the Government. In
the National Wages and Productivity Commission’s Order
of November 6,1990, the Commission noted that the
determination of wages has generally involved two
methods, the “floor-wage” method and the “salary-ceiling”
method. We quote:
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
________________
9 Id.
10 Id., 122.
11 Id., 27.
764
________________
765
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
________________
13 Shreveport Rate Case, 234, U.S. 342 (1914). But see Philippine
Communications Satellite Corporation v. Alcuaz, G.R. 84818, December
18, 1989,180 SCRA 218. on when rate-fixing is quasi-judicial for purposes
of determining compliance with due process.
14 Supra.
15 CONST., art II, sec. 18.
16 Supra, art, XII, sec. 6.
17 Supra, art, XIII, sec. 1.
18 Supra, sec. 3.
19 Pres. Decree No. 442, art 3.
766
20
that workers receive fair and equitable wages; and (7) the
Constitution is primarily a document of social justice, and
although21
it has recognized the importance of the private
sector,
22
it has not embraced fully the concept of laissez
faire or otherwise, relied on pure market forces to govern
the economy; We can not give to the Act a meaning or
intent that will conflict with these basic principles.
It is the Court’s thinking, reached after the Court’s own
study of the Act, that the Act is meant to rationalize
wages;that is, by having permanent boards to decide wages
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
________________
767
________________
768
Petition denied.
——o0o——
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/11
11/15/2018 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 201
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000016715010def1e225f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/11